ERIC EJ1067275: Faculty Perceptions of Moving a Face-to-Face Course to Online Instruction

2015·0.21 MB·English

by  ERIC

Journal of College Teaching & Learning – Third Quarter 2015 Volume 12, Number 4
Faculty Perceptions Of Moving A Face-To-
Face Course To Online Instruction
Kari Chiasson, Ed.D., University of North Dakota, USA
Katherine Terras, Ph.D., University of North Dakota, USA
Kathy Smart, Ph.D., University of North Dakota, USA

ABSTRACT

This qualitative study explores the experiences of 10 faculty members who developed and taught
an online course that they had previously taught in a face-to-face classroom. The categories from
the data analysis included planning, implementation, and reflection. Within the categories, eight
themes emerged from the data. The themes addressed technological support received during
online course development, time commitment of faculty, role of faculty member, instructional
strategies used within the online course, adjustment of teaching in an online course, synchronous
versus asynchronous instruction, faculty member confidence, and control. We drew three
conclusions from faculty members’ experiences and perceptions.

Keywords: Online Course; Course Planning; Online Course Implementation; Faculty Reflection; Faculty
Commitment

INTRODUCTION

O nline instruction in higher education has shown significant growth over the past decade. According to
Allen and Seaman (2013), more than 2,800 colleges and universities indicated online learning as critical
to the long-term strategic plan. As online education continues to grow, an increasing number of faculty
will be asked or even required to prepare curricula and teaching in this environment. Faculty who were earlier
adopters have been gaining experience for years; however, many faculty are just beginning to transition their face-
to-face courses to teaching in an online environment (Hixon, Buckenmeyer, Barczyk, Feldman, & Zamojski, 2012).

PURPOSE, RATIONALE, AND RESEARCH QUESTION

The purpose of this qualitative study was to examine the experiences of faculty members who developed
and taught an online course that originated from their recently taught face-to-face course. The rationale for this study
was to identify and document faculty members’ experiences to inform strategic planning while meeting market
demands. The research question that guided this study was, “What are the perceptions of faculty members who
developed and taught an online course after teaching it in a face-to-face format?”

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

According to Allen and Seaman (2013), the number of students taking at least one online course at
institutions of higher education totaled 6.7 million. Based on the growth in online enrollments, faculty are being
asked to develop and teach online courses. Making the switch from face-to-face instruction to online has posed some
emerging issues and concerns for faculty. Thormann and Zimmerman (2012) found that the design of the course and
its implementation are two major categories of differences between teaching courses online and face-to-face. Some
issues that have been identified include time commitment (Lewis & Abdul-Hamid, 2006), usage of technology tools
and/or learning management systems (De Gagne & Walters, 2009), implementation of appropriate pedagogical
strategies (Brinthaupt, Fisher, Gardner, Raffo, & Woodward, 2011), and adapting to the role of facilitator (Johnson,
2008).

Copyright by author(s); CC-BY 231 The Clute Institute
Journal of College Teaching & Learning – Third Quarter 2015 Volume 12, Number 4
DEVELOPMENT SUPPORT AND SERVICES

Institutional support and services for faculty redesigning face-to-face courses to an online environment vary
widely. Depending on the institution, some faculty have great latitude with minimal support whereas some
institutions require faculty to participate in training prior to teaching online. Lion and Stark (2010) reported that
80% of the institutions surveyed either agreed or strongly agreed that faculty are offered some level of support for
their online courses.

Collaborations are encouraged by institutions to inspire faculty to partner with others in their discipline or
with faculty in other academic departments. Another dimension of collaboration includes the partnerships not only
among faculty but also with the institutional informational technology staff and instructional designers. Many
faculty are willing to teach online but want institutional support in return (Lion & Stark, 2010; Taylor &
McQuiggan, 2008).

FACULTY CONSIDERATIONS

The issues of time and incentives are universal to the conversations and research related to online course
development and teaching. In a qualitative, metasynthesis study conducted by De Gagne and Walters (2009), “work
intensity” was identified as one of the major themes. Faculty believed they “spent more time on planning, designing,
delivering and evaluating online instruction” (p. 581) and thought that their workload increased. According to
Boettcher (2006), faculty reported working 60-80 hour weeks while moving a face-to-face class to an online course.
Planning, preparing, and teaching online represents more than a paradigmatic shift in the way faculty work; it is
initiating new ways to think about learning. As faculty redesign their face-to-face course to online, that process and
experience changes them as well.

Faculty members need hands-on experience as they enter the realm of teaching online for the first time.
Learning to use technology tools in a proficient manner takes time. For faculty members who have not accomplished
a level of comfort and/or proficiency with technology tools, it may have more to do with a lack of time and less to
do with opposition (Thormann & Zimmerman, 2012). Findings from several research studies indicated that
technology tools make teaching and learning more accessible and efficient, but rarely are there improvements in
learning by simply adding technology (Twigg, 2003). Bishop and White (2007) asserted that technology tools need
to be provided by the institution in combination with collaborative support to shift the focus from teaching to
learning.

METHOD

Qualitative methodology was the research design used for this for study. Specifically, phenomenological
was employed for participant selection, data collection and data analysis.

Participants

Ten participants were purposely selected based on their experience and willingness to participate in the
study (Creswell, 2013). All participants were employed at a midwestern university and taught in the College of
Education and Human Development. One participant taught in the Department of Educational Leadership, one was
from the Social Work Department, one was from the Counseling Psychology Department, and seven taught in the
Department of Teaching and Learning. All 10 participants met the criteria of having developed and taught an online
course that they had previously taught in a face-to-face classroom within the last 3 years. For the majority of the
participants, teaching an online course was a relatively new endeavor. Prior to teaching the course online, 7 of the 10
participants received some type of technology training, and all 10 participants accessed assistance from a University
level instructional designer to assist with technology related issues.

Copyright by author(s); CC-BY 232 The Clute Institute
Journal of College Teaching & Learning – Third Quarter 2015 Volume 12, Number 4
Procedure

The research was conducted with the approval of the University’s Institutional Review Board (IRB-
201210-084). Prior to conducting the interviews, we completed an epoche to set aside our personal experiences of
developing and teaching an online course that we had previously taught in a face-to-face classroom. In addition, we
intentionally addressed any preconceived notions and biases regarding the phenomenon being studied (Creswell,
2013).

We used an interview protocol (Kvale & Brinkmann, 2015), consisting of 5 demographic questions and 11
open-ended questions with approximately two probes per question about the development and teaching of the
redesigned online course. One of us conducted in-person, semi-structured interviews that lasted from 45 to 75
minutes. She provided interview instructions so that standard procedures were followed. The researcher who
conducted the interview was responsible for taking copious notes and transcribing the notes into a transcript. Each
interview transcript was assigned a code to maintain confidentiality (e.g., FP1=Faculty Participant #1). All
participants were provided a transcript for verification of accuracy through member checking (Lincoln & Guba,
1985).

Data Analysis

We used an inductive process to examine the transcripts of the 10 participant interviews. Reading each
transcript multiple times to gain a deeper understanding of the data completed the first step of the data analysis
process. Each of us independently read the transcripts multiple times.

We then conducted horizontalization by listing every expression relevant to the experience of the
participants (Moustakas, 1994). From each transcript we identified significant phrases, sentences, and quotes that
pertained directly to the participants’ lived experiences of developing an online course. The next step was to reduce
and eliminate the data (Moustakas, 1994). We scrutinized each phrase to determine if it was relevant to the
phenomenon. Outlying phrases and vague statements were discarded. We each highlighted discrepancies and a
discussion ensued to find consensus. During this step we identified 123 clusters of meaning, which were then
collapsed into 28.

The next step involved “clustering and thematizing” the invariant constituents (Moustakas, 1994, p. 87).
We formulated clusters of meaning from the significant statements and phrases and then clustered them into
categories or themes that were common to all participants. After we identified the emergent categories of
“planning,” “implementation,” and “reflection,” we collaboratively analyzed clusters of meaning for potential
themes under each category. The core themes emerged when at least 8 out of 10 participants reported a similar
experience while developing the online course. Upon completion of the data analysis, eight themes emerged across
three categories (see Table 1).

Copyright by author(s); CC-BY 233 The Clute Institute
Journal of College Teaching & Learning – Third Quarter 2015 Volume 12, Number 4
Table 1. Thematic Analysis
Categories Themes
Faculty accessed an instructional designer to learn how to effectively use technology to support
their own pedagogy while seeking pedagogical support from colleagues.
1. Planning
Faculty perceived that developing an online course is more time intensive than developing a face-
to-face course; therefore, additional compensation should be received.
Faculty roles shifted from the “sage on the stage” to the “guide on the side.”

Faculty included similar face-to-face instructional strategies in their online course using a variety
of technology tools.

2. Implementation Faculty made adjustments while teaching the course based on student understanding and feedback,
as well as on time management.

Instructors who taught synchronously suggested online does not require different instructional
tools largely due to student interaction and discussion being maintained; whereas, instructors who
taught asynchronously felt differently.
As a result of teaching online, faculty increased their confidence and believed they became better
instructors in their face-to-face courses.
3. Reflection
Faculty perceived they had less control teaching an online course resulting in students taking more
responsibility in their own learning.

The fourth step in analyzing the data was to identify overall conclusions regarding the phenomenon
experienced by the participants. Three conclusions emerged:

1. When planning, faculty spent ample time with an instructional designer learning the technologies to support
their self-identified pedagogy; thus, compensation for course development was perceived as necessary.
2. While implementing their online course, faculty’s conceptual framework was their prior face-to-face
course; interestingly, for those who delivered it synchronously, online did not require different instructional
tools like it did asynchronously.
3. Upon reflection, faculty postulated that online teaching made them more efficient and effective teachers,
even with their role shifting to facilitator.

RESULTS

Below, the themes for each category are presented with supporting evidence.

Category 1: Planning

Theme 1: Faculty accessed an instructional designer to learn how to use technology effectively to
support their own pedagogy while seeking pedagogical support from colleagues. All 10 participants used an
instructional designer to assist them in identifying appropriate technology tools that would support student learning
in their online course. While some of the participants met with the instructional designer on a weekly basis for 1 to 2
hours across a semester, other participants used them for troubleshooting technology problems. One participant
stated, “We met maybe three or four times that first summer. We were also communicating on an as-needed basis
via e-mail.” Another participant shared how she accessed assistance from an instructional designer within her own
department: “Our department has a director of distance education who helps everyone with technology . . . . she was
available every step of the way.” Most of the participants reported that the time spent with the instructional designer
was focused on exploring tool options or learning how to use the chosen tool. One participant stated, “I lay out the
objectives over a semester and then figure out the technology that would be best.” All of the participants thought
that since they had taught the course face-to-face, their pedagogy was solid but on occasion they would seek out
colleagues who had previously transitioned a course to an online format for advice on pedagogical concerns.

Copyright by author(s); CC-BY 234 The Clute Institute
Journal of College Teaching & Learning – Third Quarter 2015 Volume 12, Number 4
Theme 2: Faculty perceived that developing an online course is more time intensive than developing
a face-to-face course; therefore, additional compensation should be received. The participants reported that the
time they spent planning, implementing, and communicating with students in their online courses ranged from 2 to
20 hours per week. Most participants shared that it took a significant amount of time to learn the technology and to
place content into their course site. One participant stated, “It took a lot of time placing content online as well as
learning all the technology involved in Blackboard. It was a huge time investment but well worth it.” Another
participant stated that teaching an online course “was more work than teaching the course face-to-face” but believed
that she “ended up with a quality course.”

Among the participants, there were significant discrepancies related to compensation for online course
development and most of the participants did not know the amount other faculty were paid. Within this study, two
participants received no compensation, one received $500.00, two received $1000.00, three received $1500.00, and
two received $3000.00. Most of the participants believed that the compensation for their work was adequate; yet two
participants thought that the additional work was part of their job. One participant stated, “Persons within our
department do not understand the complexity of teaching online. Although I took the money for course
development, I felt it was part of my job.”

Category 2: Implementation

Theme 1: Faculty roles shifted from the sage on the stage to the guide on the side. Most of the
participants agreed that they experienced a role shift to that of a facilitator or guide on the side when teaching their
online course. One participant stated, “In the face-to-face class, we are the sage on the stage. I take the primary role
but move to the guide on the side very quickly as students build knowledge. In the online course, I am the guide on
the side the entire 16 week course.” Another participant shared, “My role feels like it has shifted away from being
part of the community of learners. I feel more sidelined in online classes.”

Theme 2: Faculty included similar face-to-face instructional strategies in their online course using a
variety of technology tools. Of the 10 participants, 8 used their face-to-face course as the framework for their
online course. They referenced using the same course objectives, course content, and critical components that were
used in their face-to-face course. One participant stated that students in his face-to-face course conducted
experiments during class time, whereas in the online course “students conducted the experiments outside of class
time,” so live (synchronous) sessions could be used for discussion about the activity. Some of the participants
declared they wanted best practice to lead the change to online and not to let technology dictate how they taught the
course. Yet one participant acknowledged that, at times, the technology drove the pedagogy.

Theme 3: Faculty made adjustments while teaching the course based on student understanding and
feedback, as well as on time management. One of the major concerns reported by the participants was the need to
provide students with more detail regarding the description of the assignments and clearly sharing the due dates of
all assignments. All of the participants provided at least one example of making some type of adjustment while
teaching their first online course. Several participants came to the realization that it was unrealistic to take
everything (e.g., activities, assignments) from their face-to-face course and put it into their online course.

Theme 4: Instructors who taught synchronously suggested online does not require different
instructional tools largely due to student interaction and discussion being maintained; whereas instructors
who taught asynchronously felt differently. The participants who taught their online course synchronously
reported that, other than learning the technology, they did not see any major differences from teaching the same
course in a face-to-face classroom. One participant stated, “Adobe Connect Live allowed me to build a community,
and I like being a facilitator of a community.” He went on to suggest that “students in [his] online course got to
know each other as they shared common concerns and joys while affirming each other.” Another participant
described how she took what she did in her face-to-face course and replicated it in her online course. Participants
who taught asynchronous online courses reported that online instruction was not the same as when they taught their
face-to-face course primarily due to issues involving time, organization, and interactions between student and
teacher and student to student.

Copyright by author(s); CC-BY 235 The Clute Institute
Journal of College Teaching & Learning – Third Quarter 2015 Volume 12, Number 4
Category 3: Reflection

Theme 1: As a result of teaching online, faculty increased their confidence and believed they became
better instructors in their face-to-face courses. All participants shared that teaching their first online course was
wrought with challenges, but in the end they felt a sense of accomplishment and most believed it informed how they
taught all of their courses. Several participants reported how they became more organized, prepared, precise, and
used many more features within the Blackboard Learning Management System® resulting in a higher level of
confidence. One participant shared, “I have improved compared to the first time I taught the course and do not feel
guilty. The difference between how I feel is like day and night. I am not completely satisfied but I did a pretty good
job.” Nearly all of the participants rated their technology skills higher after teaching the online course. One
participant rated herself a 3-4 on a 10-point scale prior to teaching the course, then rated herself a solid 8 afterwards.
She explained, “I would definitely say that I am much more confident in the area of technological skills. I am the
first to admit that I do not know everything I need to know when it comes to online teaching but I am constantly
seeking out new ways to improve.” Another participant stated, “Wow! I learned so much about myself as an online
instructor. First, I learned that I could actually develop and teach an online course. Second, I gained so much more
confidence in myself as an instructor.”

Theme 2: Faculty perceived they had less control teaching an online course resulting in students
taking more responsibility in their own learning. Several participants suggested they had difficulty establishing
and maintaining a sense of control within their online courses. One participant stated, “I have a lot less control,
which is a good thing because it hands learning back to the learner where it belongs. The responsibility to learn is on
them.” Another participant shared her thoughts about teaching her first online course: “The first year I taught the
online course, I gave my first D ever. I was really questioning the instruction and interaction of the students. I asked
myself, ‘What am I doing?’ I talked to the student’s advisor and was told the student had a history of not putting
forth effort in some of her other courses. She told me to relax and helped me put it into perspective. I have to say
that the doubt on my part was strong, but you can’t do the work for the student either.”

DISCUSSION

Based on the eight themes presented, we drew three conclusions about faculty members’ experience from
face-to-face to online course delivery.

CONCLUSIONS

Conclusion 1: When planning, faculty spent ample time with an instructional designer learning the
technologies to support their self-identified pedagogy; thus, compensation for course development was
perceived as necessary. While all participants agreed that developing an online course was more time intensive,
none of them were given release time in any form to plan and design their course. Compensation for development
was perceived as necessary, yet there was an inequitable monetary compensation structure within the college, as
well as no evidence of alternative compensatory mechanisms, such as a course release or reduction in service
expectations.

The majority of planning by the participants was with an instructional designer who assisted in selecting
and learning technologies to support pedagogy. Only one participant worked in a department that invested in a full-
time director of distance education position. The others were solely reliant on the University’s center for
instructional and learning technologies. This center was the only formal support structure for faculty with a focus on
teaching them to navigate technology independently. Participants invested time creating frameworks to situate their
content for presentation and informally solicit pedagogical consultations from colleagues. In Keengwe and Kidd’s
(2010) review of the literature, the online instructor’s role can be viewed under four categories: pedagogical, social,
managerial, and technical. Managing these four roles has given those who teach online significantly more
responsibility. Ryan, Hodson-Carlton, and Ali (2004) concluded that infrastructure (i.e., policy, technology
partnerships, support systems) must already be in place before moving to an online teaching format. Based on
concerns from a study of faculty who transitioned to online teaching, Johnson (2008) recommended that a team of
Copyright by author(s); CC-BY 236 The Clute Institute
Journal of College Teaching & Learning – Third Quarter 2015 Volume 12, Number 4
experts be developed to share in the responsibility, including content expert (faculty member), web-based pedagogy
expert, and a technology expert.

Faculty acceptance of online education is consistently cited as a significant barrier, with many being
hesitant due to lack of support, assistance, and training (Allen & Seaman, 2008). Comparatively, Mills, Yanes, and
Casebeer (2009) also conducted a qualitative study of faculty perceptions in a college of education. One of the
findings was that administrative support was lacking both with infrastructure and compensation. In this study,
participants identified similar temporal, financial, and infrastructural barriers. Participants noted hesitancy to engage
in teaching a course online due to their perceptions of these barriers; consequently, leading them to perceive online
education as ineffective and/or too labor intensive. Although the participants in our study encountered the
aforementioned barriers, they accepted them (e.g., worked for little or no financial payment) or overcame them (e.g.,
solicited own mentor). Intriguingly, the participants revised their initial perceptions and concluded online education
made them better teachers.

De Gagne and Walters (2009) conducted a qualitative metasynthesis of the online teaching experience
across nine studies involving 203 participants. All of the studies documented work intensity with planning,
designing, delivering, and evaluating online instruction, thus increasing faculty workload. The process of designing
and planning online courses is often more time consuming because instructors must provide more detail regarding
the process, structure, and evaluation, along with the interactive components of the course (Anderson, Rourke,
Garrison, & Archer, 2001; De Gagne & Walters, 2009). Results from De Gagne and Walters’ (2009) metasynthesis
suggested that faculty need to be provided with continuous support that includes appropriate technology, ongoing
training, and technical assistance. A confirming finding was drawn from our study. However, what was interesting
about the participants in this study was the need for continuous support, yet there was an underlying passivity for
improving institutional support.

Conclusion 2: While implementing their online course, faculty’s conceptual framework was their
prior face-to-face course; interestingly, for those who delivered it synchronously, online did not require
different instructional tools like it did teaching asynchronously. The professional literature suggested online
courses not only need different instructional and technical tools (Ray, 2009), but also a different type of pedagogy
(Bates & Watson, 2008). From the current study, the opposing viewpoint is that while the pedagogical strategies
remained intact during the development and teaching of online courses, it was the medium and instructional tools
that changed. To illustrate, modeling is a well-accepted pedagogical strategy that went from a live demonstration in
a face-to-face class to a recorded demonstration in the online class. In our study, participants reported how course
objectives and accreditation accountability were not altered per learning format; pedagogy remained the independent
variable for quality assurance. This was confirmed with the findings in Johnson’s (2008) study in that “the
conceptual framework, program outcomes, and student learning objectives do not change in web-based education.
Students can acquire and synthesize new knowledge in this environment much as they do in a face-to-face
classroom” (p. 22).

For those who taught synchronously, instructional styles were comparable to face-to-face instruction
regarding how students participated in and led class discussions and presentations. Participants denoted minor
alterations, such as a reduction in lecture time. Participants who delivered their courses asynchronously also retained
their conceptual, pedagogical framework from face-to-face, but had to use different media and instructional tools for
presentation of content and for student interaction. For these reasons, a face-to-face classroom experience is difficult
to replicate in the online environment without adjustments (Ray, 2009).

Conclusion 3: Upon reflection, faculty postulated that online teaching made them more efficient and
effective teachers, even with their role shifting to facilitator. Because this study was situated in a college of
education, most participants were already pedagogical experts, yet online teaching further advanced their skills.
They used more explicit instruction for clarity, enhanced content with new instructional tools and aids, and became
more intentional about social interaction.

When teaching online, faculty find themselves in the role of learning facilitator rather than lecturer or
teacher, and this change is one for which many faculty find themselves unprepared (Vaill & Testori, 2012). In the
Copyright by author(s); CC-BY 237 The Clute Institute
Journal of College Teaching & Learning – Third Quarter 2015 Volume 12, Number 4
current study, the shift to facilitator was embraced by most, but uncomfortable for a few. Students taking
responsibility for their learning is an expectation of most faculty, yet how that responsibility is operationalized
varies from taking leadership roles in content presentation to taking responsibility for studying content presented by
the instructor. Based on De Gagne and Walters’ (2009) qualitative metasynthesis, one of the most significant
changes was in the role from lecturer to guide, from knowledge dispenser to resource provider, and from authority to
facilitator. Interestingly, only one faculty member perceived his role as being a facilitator in his face-to-face classes
prior to this study. While several faculty employed constructivist principles, they still perceived their role as a being
a teacher in the traditional classroom. However, after teaching online, the role of facilitator became more prevalent
in their face-to-face classes.

There was also growth in the affective domain of learning. Some participants were able to “let go” or at
least “push the boundaries of control” of the variables in online learning (e.g., temporal delays due to technology).
Others noted a reduction in anxiety after conquering aspects of online teaching.

Qualitative studies of instructors who teach online are crucial to provide direction for practice and research
as they offer an emic perspective (De Gagne & Walters, 2009). In this study, it was perceived that faculty who
transition to teaching an online course from a face-to-face course are pedagogically sound but seek out technology
training and require ongoing support while teaching their course. Whereas, they seek collegial support to address
concerns related to pedagogy, the faculty role, and logistics of teaching an online course.

RECOMMENDATIONS

When the need arises for courses to be developed or redesigned for online delivery, the department and/or
college needs to establish an equitable workload compensation policy that addresses the additional work required of
faculty. Consideration of additional time and effort for receiving technology training, planning, designing, delivering
and evaluating online instruction needs to be addressed.

Another recommendation is that a multi-tiered system of support (MTSS) for new and experienced faculty
be implemented within the institution. Even though the current infrastructure within the University emphasizes
technological acquisition, additional considerations to support faculty through orientation, mentoring, and ongoing
support must be addressed. Above all, a robust MTSS needs to offer a variety of services that are supported
universally and individually.

A recommendation for future research is to explore institutional support for online teaching by faculty who
are in varied fields of study. Further, exploring how academic programs determine and prioritize the development of
online courses and the faculty time required to do so. Finally, asertaning if and how institutions recognize online
course development in promotion and tenure considerations is germane as remuneration often does not reflect the
time required.

AUTHOR INFORMATION

Dr. Kari Chiasson is an associate professor in the special education program at the University of North Dakota
(UND), Department of Teaching and Learning. She holds a bachelor’s degree in elementary and special education
(visual impairment), a master’s degree in special education (early childhood special education) and a doctoral degree
in teacher education. Her research interests include online education, faculty development, and education of young
children with disabilities and students with blindness and visual impairment. E-mail: [email protected]
(Contact author)

Dr. Katherine Terras is an Associate Professor of Teaching and Learning at the University of North Dakota. She
holds a bachelors degree in elementary education, a master’s degree in special education (with expertise in
emotional/behavioral disorders, behavior analysis, and assessment) and a doctoral degree in higher education. Her
research interests include distance learning, institutional assessment, and educational outcomes for students with
emotional/behavioral disorders. E-mail: [email protected]

Copyright by author(s); CC-BY 238 The Clute Institute
Journal of College Teaching & Learning – Third Quarter 2015 Volume 12, Number 4
Kathy Smart has over 25 years of professional experience as a university administrator and as a faculty member at
the University of North Dakota. Currently an Associate Professor in the Department of Teaching and Learning in the
College of Education, she teaches graduate and undergraduate courses in technology in higher education and PK-12
teacher preparation. In the teacher preparation program, Dr. Smart teaches courses for early childhood, elementary,
secondary and middle school teacher candidates many of whom will student teach and become employed in rural
communities upon graduation. E-mail: [email protected]

REFERENCES

Allen, I., & Seaman, J. (2008, January 1). Staying the course: Online education in the United States. Retrieved from
http://olc.onlinelearningconsortium.org/publications/survey/staying_course
Allen, I., & Seaman, J. (2013). Changing course: Ten years of tracking online education in the United States.
Retrieved from http://sloanconsortium.org/publications/survey/changing_course_2012
Anderson, T., Rourke, L., Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (2001). Assessing teaching presence in a computer
conferencing context. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 5(2), 1-17.
Bates, C., & Watson, M. (2008, March). Re-learning teaching techniques to be effective in hybrid and online
courses. Journal of American Academy of Business, 13(1), 38-44.
Bishop, M., & White, S. (2007). The clipper project: Discovering what online courses offer residential universities.
EDUCAUSE Review Online, 30(1), 14-20. Retrieved from https://net.educause.edu
Boettcher, J. (2006). How much does it cost to develop a distance learning course? It all depends . . . Retrieved
from http://www.designingforlearning.info/services/writing/dlmay.htm
Brinthaupt, T., Fisher, L., Gardner, J., Raffo, D., & Woodward, J. (2011). What the best online teachers do. Journal
of Online Learning and Teaching, 7(4), 515-524.
Creswell, J. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (3rd ed.). Los
Angeles, CA: Sage.
De Gagne, J. C., & Walters, K. (2009). Online teaching experience: A qualitative metasynthesis (QMS). Journal of
Online Learning and Teaching, 5(4), 577-589.
Hixon, E., Buckenmeyer, J., Barczyk, C., Feldman, L., & Zamojski, L. (2012). Beyond
the early adopters of online instruction: Motivating the reluctant majority. Internet and Higher Education,
15(2), 102-107. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect .com/science/article/pii/S1096751611000893
Johnson, A. (2008). A nursing faculty’s transition to teaching online. Nursing Education Perspectives, 29(1), 17-22.
Keengwe, J., & Kidd, T. T., (2010, June). Towards best practices in online learning and teaching in higher
education. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 6(2). Retrieved from
http://jolt.merlot.org/vol6no2/keengwe_0610.htm
Kvale, S., & Brinkmann, S. (2015). InterViews: Learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing (3rd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Lewis, C., & Abdul-Hamid, H. (2006). Implementing effective online teaching practices: Voices of exemplary
faculty. Innovative Higher Education, 31(2), 83-98.
doi: 10.1007/s10755-006-9010-z
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Lion, R., & Stark, G. (2010). A glance at institutional support for faculty teaching in an online learning environment.
EDUCAUSE Quarterly, 33(3). Retrieved from http://www.educause.edu/ero/article/glance-institutional-
support-faculty-teaching-online-learning-environment
Mills, S. J., Yanes, M. J., & Casebeer, C. M. (2009). Perceptions of distance learning among faculty of a college of
education. Journal of Online Learning and Technology, 5(1), 19-28.
Moustakas, C. (1994). Phenomenological research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Ray, J. (2009). Faculty perspective: Training and course development for the online classroom. Journal of Online
Learning and Teaching, 5(2), 263-276.
Ryan, M., Hodson-Carlton, K., & Ali, N. S. (2004). Reflections on the role of faculty in distance learning and
changing pedagogies. Nursing Education Perspectives, 25(2), 73-80.
Taylor, A., & McQuiggan, C. (2008). Faculty development programming: If we build it, will they come?
EDUCAUSE Quarterly, 31(3),
28-37.
Thormann, J., & Zimmerman, I. K. (2012). The complete step-by-step guide to designing and teaching online
Copyright by author(s); CC-BY 239 The Clute Institute
Journal of College Teaching & Learning – Third Quarter 2015 Volume 12, Number 4
courses. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Twigg, C. A. (2003). Improving learning and reducing costs: New models for online learning. EDUCAUSE Review,
38(5), 28-38.
Vaill, A. L., & Testori, P. A. (2012). Orientation, mentoring and ongoing support: A three-tiered approach to online
faculty development. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 16(2), 111-119.

Copyright by author(s); CC-BY 240 The Clute Institute